If we want to do something like that, I would overload the existing
!size hack. For example, add an "f" for finished flag and say that the
URIs are conceptually processed from left to right and if you send
your report to one with a !f (or !10mf or the like) flag, you can stop.
Legacy producers unable to interpret "f" may discard the whole URI.
At this point we're both just guessing what current code might do with
syntax errors in a rua= tag. Here's something that's definitely
compatible:
We add a new ruap= tag for rua preferred, with the same syntax as rua. If
the reporting system can handle all of the URIs in the ruap tag, it uses
them. (They don't all have to successfully deliver, but it knows how to
try.) Otherwise it falls back to rua. The goal here is that someone can
put the new https: URI in ruap and the old mailto: URI in rua.
To send a report using the https: URI, the reporter appends the filename
described in section 7.2.1.1 to the given URI and does a PUT of the
report, with MIME type application/gzip if it's compressed an text/xml if
not. The server responds with code 201 if the report is succesfully
stored.
It'd be something like this if the URI is https://report.bar.com/dmarc/
PUT
https://report.bar.com/dmarc/foo.com%21bar.com%211607068800%211607155200.xml.gz
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
